Trump's Alleged Campaign Finance Violations

[Forty Two]

The Cohen plea is obviously an attempt to link Trump to a campaign finance violation. The payments made to women for non-disclosure agreements are apparently going to be alleged to have been for the purpose of the election.

So, what are the best for and against arguments. Was the payment to Stormy Daniels a campaign finance violation? If so, why? If not, why not? And, for the payment to Karen McDougal? If so, why? and If not, why not?

[let's not merge this thread - to cover the legal and factual issues associated with this narrow issue, it would basically stifle conversation if it gets mixed up in a more general, broad thread].

[Brian Peacock]

I guess it depends on what was on the invoices and which budget they were paid from.

[Brian Peacock]

Cohen's lawyer has been doing the rounds saying his client has evidence of coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Obviously made up up 'tell us what we want to hear' nonsense.

[Forty Two]

I don't know.

One, Cohen is going to get disbarred, and he seems to be fairly free with attorney-client communications. Typically, if a client comes into the office and says he has a pile of cocaine at his house, the lawyer is not permitted to alert the media and law enforcement. There are cases where lawyers were told where dead bodies were buried, and were bound by the privilege to keep their mouths shut.

Two, spill the beans, then. If this is a matter of national security, where candidate trump conspired with a foreign power to commit criminal acts in order to get elected, then be a patriot and report the information. What's he doing dangling it around?

Three, the allegation regarding Stormy Daniels payoff is that Cohen paid $130,000 with a home equity loan, and Trump reimbursed him. Assuming the truth of those allegations, and assuming the truth that Cohen and Trump's purpose was to hide the information so that people would be more likely to vote for him, not knowing that he fucked the porn star, is it a campaign finance violation?

The only reason why the plea deal would include Cohen's reference to "purpose to influence the election" would be to raise a campaign finance issue connected to Trump.

[laklak]

Why the fuck would The Donald use $130,000 in campaign funds to pay off some whore? It's fucking pocket change to him and he isn't stupid.

Just come out and say "Yeah I banged her like a cheap fucking gong and then gave her $130Gs to shut her fucking mouth". None of it is illegal, and nobody gives a shit.

[Animavore]

Trump is the whore. A fucking chump.

And yes. He is stupid. One of the most stupid cunts walking around today.

[Seabass]

and he isn't stupid.

Lmao.

[JimC]

42, if there is clear evidence that the money for Stormy originated from his campaign funds, would that be enough to charge or impeach Trump?

[pErvinalia]

[L'Emmerdeur]

Is it stupid to repeatedly renege on paying contractors what they're owed? How about having your 'charitable foundation' (to which you yourself haven't contributed in nearly a decade) buy items for you, or make political contributions, the latter of which happens to be illegal? Perhaps setting things up so that the government pays for the use of facilities you own because you yourself are using them is stupid? Well no, from Trump's point of view, that makes him smart. He's long been notorious for sleazy, unethical or illegal practices that demonstrate a marked tightfistedness with money. He prefers not to pay, or pay with somebody else's money, even if sometimes it means stepping over a legal line; Trump thinks this is 'smart'.

It's known that a corporation set up by Cohen paid out $130,000 to Daniels. It is also known that the Trump campaign regularly paid money to the Trump Organization. Rudy Giuliani has said that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the payment, but I don't think he's ever presented evidence of where the money actually came from. If it turns out that money from the campaign went to cover the payment to Daniels, it certainly wouldn't be out of character for Trump.

[JimC]

If it turns out that money from the campaign went to cover the payment to Daniels, it certainly wouldn't be out of character for Trump.

Which brings me to my question, which has to be fairly central to this whole debacle - if that were proved to be the case, would there be a prosecution and/or impeachment?

Mind you, in virtually all western democracies, if a leader had be shown to pay hush money to a whore, no matter where the money came from, he'd be out on his ear...

[pErvinalia]

In Australia you can be out on your ear just for being leader...

[JimC]

We probably go a little far the other way; the night of the long knives is ever present...

[Seabass]

If it turns out that money from the campaign went to cover the payment to Daniels, it certainly wouldn't be out of character for Trump.

Which brings me to my question, which has to be fairly central to this whole debacle - if that were proved to be the case, would there be a prosecution and/or impeachment?

I seriously doubt he'll be impeached. This would require the Republicans to the right thing, which is something they are clearly incapable of. As for prosecution... probably, eventually, after his presidency. He'll probably get a pardon too.

Mind you, in virtually all western democracies, if a leader had be shown to pay hush money to a whore, no matter where the money came from, he'd be out on his ear...

Deja Vu...

Normally, this sort of thing is a career ender here too. Trump is an aberration. His scandals only seem to make his party and his base even more devoted to him. I've never seen anything like it. This whole Trump saga has been fucking surreal from day one. I know the US is known for having shitty politicians, but this one takes the cake. I mean, holy fuck, this guy was a reality TV star. In liberal America, he's been a laughing stock, a national joke since the 80s. But then he runs for president and says a bunch of hateful, bigoted shit, and conservative America goes, "Yeah, he's our guy... he should be president!" Unfuckingbelievable.

Basically, Fox News and other right-media have finally created a situation in which liberal vs conservative is no longer about difference of opinion—we now believe in different realities. Liberal America generally has a grip on objective reality, while conservative America believes in a whole lot of insane horse shit, and I don't see this situation getting better any time soon.

[L'Emmerdeur]

If it turns out that money from the campaign went to cover the payment to Daniels, it certainly wouldn't be out of character for Trump.

Which brings me to my question, which has to be fairly central to this whole debacle - if that were proved to be the case, would there be a prosecution and/or impeachment?

Mind you, in virtually all western democracies, if a leader had be shown to pay hush money to a whore, no matter where the money came from, he'd be out on his ear...

The question of prosecution of a sitting president is not settled despite claims to the contrary, but I'd say it's very unlikely to happen. Impeachment to a great extent depends on political considerations, but if there's a strong case and Democrats control the House of Representatives (which is a distinct possibility after the mid-term elections this November) it could happen.

The question of whether spending money from the campaign on keeping Daniels from telling her story is a violation of campaign laws isn't absolutely clear. Is hush money a legitimate campaign expense? As long as full disclosure to the Federal Elections Committee is made and the payment was legal in every other way, I'd say there was a good argument that it can be considered a legitimate expense. However, there wan't any disclosure, so if it turns out that campaign money went to Daniels, even in a roundabout way, that in itself violates campaign finance laws.

There is a law against using campaign money for personal use. It could be argued that the hush money was a personal expense, so again, if it came from the campaign that would be illegal.

If in fact Trump himself or his corporation paid the hush money, that still could be a violation of campaign finance laws because all campaign expenses must be reported. Trump's lawyers could argue that the payment was entirely personal and had no relation to the campaign, and it's conceivable that would work.